The White Council

Re: Ranking Bombadil, Sauron, and other great powers

Tolkien and Inklings Discussion

: [snip]

: : But militarily Sauron could not have hoped to have overcome the Valar any more than Melkor had in the First Age. They had the overwhelming strength on their side. They would not again invade Middle-earth with war, for their own reasons, but Sauron posed no threat to them. He did, however, in the estimation of those at Rivendell, possess the strength to overcome even Bombadil, and thus Bombadil's inherent power should not be deemed so great (on the evidence available) that he would rival a Vala in power. There is no evidence that Sauron could have overcome any of the Valar in a contest of strength.

: Careful there. I think you're being too flip there with the power of the Valar. Remember, all the Valar - all beings - are finite. The 14 Valar are not invincible, and their powers are very limited - partly because they are finite, and partly because they are subject to laws that they cannot simply cast aside. If they are invincible, why would they raise the Pelori? Fashion? If they cannot be defeated by any military might, why would they have brought the hosts of the Vanyar with them in the War of Wrath, needlessly endangering lives? If they were infinitely powerful, why would they have needed to abdicate their powers to Iluvatar when the Numenoreans set foot in Aman? (they *could* have just pushed them all back into their ships and blown their ships back to Numenor without harming a single one... if they were infinitely powerful, that is.)

: But they are not. Now I'm not implying that they did things like raising the Pelori out of fear of being defeated. I believe that Tolkien states that only Melkor of all the Valar knew fear. But being fearless is not the same thing as being invincible, not fearing defeat is not the same thing as being assured of victory.

: Someone below posted that he did not doubt that Tulkas could have come traipsing through Mordor, bashed down the doors of the Barad-dur, grabbed Sauron by the neck, and dragged him kicking and screaming all the way to Valinor. A fun image, but not one I think that was possible.

: Think about it... If Tulkas *could* have done that, why didn't he? How many lives would have been saved? The only conclusion from this line of thinking is that either (a) something is terribly wrong with Valinorean morality; or (b) something is terribly wrong with ours (in so far as we think that people dying needlessly is a bad thing).

: But it doesn't need to come to that. Rather, I'd just leave it up to the vague discription that the Valar were unable to do such things - either because they physically couldn't, or because it would break some ethereal laws, or both.

: You say there is no evidence to suggest that Sauron could have overcome the Valar in a contest of strength. But is there any evidence against it? Had Sauron regained the ring, he would have been much more powerful than he had been at any point before. He would have been militarily more powerful than Morgoth ever was. And who can say if he approached the personal power (for lack of a better term) of a Vala with the ring on his finger? It is unquestioned by Gandalf and the Wise, that if Sauron were to regain the One, he would dominate Middle-earth. Morgoth was never able to achieve that. Morgoth, with his Balrogs and his Dragons and other servants, did come close, and only the War of Wrath kept total victory from his grasp; but Sauron almost matched that without the One. If he had regained the One, and had his wraiths with their rings on their fingers at his side, and all his other servants (Orcs, Trolls, Men, Dwarves (?), Sorcerors, etc.) as well, and all the resources of Middle-earth at his disposal - who can say what Sauron would have or could have done? Could he have assailed Valinor? Could he have released Morgoth from the Void? Would Armageddon have come? Or only the Millennial rule of the Enemy?

: Or maybe you are correct and the Valar would have descended to Middle-earth and whoopped his hide. But if that is the case, why did they allow ruination and genocide to come within a hair's breadth of happening in the first place? Or if Sauron did conquer, and they came to conquer him in turn, what then would be left of Middle-earth except a war-torn land of pestilence and horror?

: Just some thoughts to upset the apple cart. ;)

: Dave C-Q

I thought these questions were close to being asked. This leads into the a discussion of theology and the nature of God. For the sake of argument we'll assume there is a God, else these questions have no meaning. Aren't we asking the age old question "why does God permit evil?" And is there a titanic srtuggle between good and evil for domination of the universe? I am not very good at cosmological or ontological arguments. I only took Philosophy 101, and the only thing I remember is that if you took all the philosophers in the world and laid them end to end they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.